Arcane Wonders Forum

This came up in conversation about unorthodox ways to mess with an opponent and wasnt sure how it plays out properly.

Can I defend myself against a debuff enchantment, or deny an opponent a beneficial enchantment by placing a copy face down with no intention of revealing it?

According to the rules: "There is no limit to the number of different enchantments that can be on an object, but each object or zone cannot have more than one enchantment with the same name attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and revealed enchantments. It is possible both players may attach an identical enchantment to the same target. if an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target, it is immediately destroyed."

So because it applies to both face down and face up enchantments universally, if i put a Poison Blood under myself then the opponent reveals a Poison Blood, his would be destroyed even with mine unrevealed? (obviously Id have to inform the opponent)

If it works, seems like a fun way to hamper certain enchantments, as well as block certain buffs. (slide bear strength under a beast masters pet, sneak a forcefield under an opposing forcemaster in a mirror match so that its destroyed upon reveal, then shift it back to yourself, for example)

As you quoted, if an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target. So, yes as soon as one of them is revealed then both would be destroyed.As an added bonus to your trick, the following passage would seem to indicate that your opponent would pay the reveal cost first, before there is a conflict.

Quote

When you reveal your enchantment, first you pay the revealcost, before resolving the effect of the enchantment. If thecost is not paid, the enchantment is destroyed before itcan resolve and have any effect. If the cost is paid, flip theenchantment over and reveal it to your opponent, then placeit partially under the object it is attached to.

It would also, actually, be illegal for you not to show your opponent the identical enchantment, and destroy them both.

"if an identical enchantment is revealed, it is immediately destroyed" so the one is revealed and destroyed because it was the one that is both identical and revealed.

Sounds to me like the original face down one would stay, though the opponent would now know what it is.

Or am I focusing too much on the game mechanic "revealed" and not enough on the literal word "revealed" in that case?

You are right baronzaltor. They are not both destroyed, only the new one is. If you play poison blood on your self face down, and then the opponent plays poison blood on you and reveals it. nothing happens. If you were to reveal your face down poison blood after that, Your copy of poison blood would be destroyed. So if you have a enchantment with the same name face down as one that is face up, that is fine. You do not have to let the opponent know. If you reveal it, then the newest one is destroyed, not both.

You're right, it doesn't say they are both destroyed, only the one that is revealed.

If an identical enchantment is revealed, it is immediately destroyed.You put a Poison Blood on yourself, and keep it facedown.Then your opponent puts one on you and reveals it.If you were to then reveal your Poison Blood, yours would be the one that gets destroyed, because its the identical enchantment being revealed.

However, "each object or zone cannothave more than one enchantment with the same nameattached to it at one time. This includes both hidden andrevealed enchantments."Which would seem to indicate that the second one should technically be destroyed as soon as it is attached, but can't happen as you don't know what the other person played.

Which means that short of a third party always checking what enchantments are being played, what DarthDadaD20 said is the only way to make the rule work in reality.This of course would also mean that your tactic won't work. Even though technically it should, as that is how it would work if you were to play both of them yourself.

The reason that it works that way is because enchantments take no effect until the are revealed. It does not matter what enchantment you have face down,it is just not in play until it is revealed.(Rhino hide face down is not a +2 to your armor, its not even considered a rhino hide,it is considered a face down enchantment, that is, until it is face up and in play.) It would be cool if it worked that way, and would add a different strategy to enchantments. :)

as that is how it would work if you were to play both of them yourself.

I think it would still be just the newest enchantment that would be destroyed. [strike]On a side note, Im thinking this is the reason (Or one there of) that the game was made to have Mandatory enchantments. That way you could play two or four blocks or nullifys on yourself if you chosen to do so....but once that event triggers, you have no choice in them all going off at once.[/strike]Edit What I said here really makes no sense, I was thinking out loud...)

as that is how it would work if you were to play both of them yourself.

I think it would still be just the newest enchantment that would be destroyed. On a side note, Im thinking this is the reason (Or one there of) that the game was made to have Mandatory enchantments. That way you could play two or four blocks or nullifys on yourself if you chosen to do so....but once that event triggers, you have no choice in them all going off at once.

I cannot tell if you guys are speaking hypothetically here or not, but in any case you can't cast 2 enchantments with the same name on yourself even if they are face down.

I agree with the way you answered the topic's question, although that is just my opinion.

By the rules it cant be done but speaking from a tourney level you only have 2 ways to check this.

First call a judge over to see if the play is legal over not. Second would be to wait until the card is revealed ( this would include things like seeking dispel).

In the second case the way I would rule it is the player casting the seeking dispel get the mana refunded, puts the seeking dispel back in the book, and gets to plan a different card(based off the fact the only reason they planed a seeking dispel was from an illegal play). The player who made the illegal play gets no mana refund, the illegal enchant stays in the discard, and the do not get to replan.

we are speaking hypothetically on casting the same enchantment on yourself, since legal targeting applies, it was answered in another thread that you couldn't cast a spell on yourself illegally to use as a bluff. I just used it as an example to explain the rules,(Since a opponent cannot see whats hidden I dont know what other example to use.) I super glad you said something though, Tacullu64 so there is no confusion to anyone who reads this and isnt directly involved in the conversation at this time! :)

No problem, I'm glad you took it the way you did. It's all about the community and keeping things clear in as polite and friendly a manner as possible. Got cover for each other when things could get misunderstood.

The reason that it works that way is because enchantments take no effect until the are revealed. It does not matter what enchantment you have face down,it is just not in play until it is revealed.(Rhino hide face down is not a +2 to your armor, its not even considered a rhino hide,it is considered a face down enchantment, that is, until it is face up and in play.) It would be cool if it worked that way, and would add a different strategy to enchantments. :)

I dont think this is true though, because Im not allowed to cast 4 Rhino Hides on a target and just reveal a new one each time one is destroyed. The quoted rule says it applies to face up and face down enchantments.They still count as identical enchantments even if facedown, which is were the original idea started from. They do count as at least their name while attached according to the quote.

It is not. You have to target a leagal target. I have had a hard time finding a way to explain this. you could target a opponents creature with rhino hide even if they had a rhino hide face down since it is not in play, that is what I was trying to say.good point on your part for sure, and thank you. like how if I put a face down bear strength on your creature and then you played a face up bear strength. on the same creature, no you cant have two of the same enchantments on one creature, but the face down bear strength would stay until it was revealed. is that better you think.? I'm sorry I answered. the question and then made it confusing for everyone....or am I wrong? would I have to say..."oh you revealed. bear strength? well that's my face down enchantment on your creature,let me go ahead and destroy that now that you have one revealed???? I think I am right.

I think it's an interesting game state question that does need to be clarified in the faq, or at least in tournament rules. Honestly, it would not come into play very often unless someone is being shady, as we usually only play negative enchantments on our opponents creatures and positive on our own, but I can see someone stacking a bunch of bear strengths on one creature just to reveal them when one is destroyed could be an issue. Granted by the time that happened, someones noticed and you probably just got disqualified...

Like what if I enchant your creature with eagle wings so tarok has an easier time against it, and you already have eagle wings, or play a face down eagle wings before mine is revealed?

In competitive play, neither person would want to confirm that both are the same, because that would be giving away information that shouldn't be revealed to begin with.

Though you can't just say that an identical enchantment can only be revealed if the first is destroyed, because then you have a bear strength stacking situation. I doubt any competitive players would go by the honor system either. Do we just say that if an enchantment is destroyed and the player attempts to reveal an identical enchantment right after it just goes to the discard pile? That's a bit of game state memory, especially if the opponent waits as long as possible before revealing. Looking forward to this one!

would I have to say..."oh you revealed. bear strength? well that's my face down enchantment on your creature,let me go ahead and destroy that now that you have one revealed????

Thats how I interpterated it, except the revealed one is destroyed not the hidden one.

to re quote: "There is no limit to the number of different enchantments that can be on an object, but each object or zone cannot have more than one enchantment with the same name attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and revealed enchantments. It is possible both players may attach an identical enchantment to the same target. if an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target, it is immediately destroyed."

My reading and interpretation was:To use the Poison Blood example-

I play Poison Blood facedown on myself, obviously with no intent to reveal it...but because I suspect the opponent will try to use it on me.

Now, Poison Blood is not a legal target for me to play on myself again because of the quoted rule. no copies are allowed, face up or down. But, because the rule says "its possible both players may attach identical enchantments to the same target" So my opponent could still play a Poison Blood face down on me (since the opponent doesnt know better)

Once the opponent reveals HIS Poison Blood, it is tagged as identical to the facedown one I have. Which then obligates me to inform you that the Poison Blood you flipped must be destroyed because I already have a copy of that spell attached to me. Because the rule also states: "if an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target, it is immediately destroyed". The revealed one is destroyed. So because my opponents was the one revealed, and it is identical to the unrevealed one it must be destroyed an my unrevealed one stays there though its identity is no longer a mystery.

Or, in a reverse scenario of using it to deny a beneficial enchantment:We are both Force Masters.I play my Forcefield Face-Down on you.

You can still attach Forcefield to yourself (and do so, for this example) and I couldnt play another on you.

When you reveal Forcefield, I inform you that you already have that enchantment on you and then you must destroy it. (and show the card or call a judge I assume to confirm)

Then I use Shift Enchantment to get my Forcefield back.

That is how we thought the rule was stated, making Enchantments interesting ways to counter themselves. But we were never 100% certain if that is how it was meant to work.

One of the things about playing enchantments is that the ones you place should be on your side of the card for both players and the ones your opponent places should be one his side of the card. I didn't pick this rule up the first time I played either.

My opponent has different colored sleeves than me on his cards which makes clean up much easier along with keeping track of whose enchantment is whose.

Each object or zone cannothave more than one enchantment with the same nameattached to it at one time. This includes both hidden andrevealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach twoBear Strength spells to the same creature. It is possible thatboth players may attach an identical enchantment to thesame target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on thesame target, it is immediately destroyed.The part in the bold makes me believe that I am right that you do not have to tell your opponent that there is a enchantment with the same name as long as it is face down....Granted that I really messed up in my examples and I am sorry for the confusion.

Ok, so your are saying shad0w that if a duplicate enchantment was face down,you would have to expect the opponent to tell you that a newly revealed enchantment is the same as one that is face down and then destroy it? With that wording "if an identical enchantment is revealed, it really makes it sound like if one is already face up and then a identical enchantment is revealed, then the newest one is destroyed...... How you said it makes me go "ADURR" but reading it from the rule book, that was the only thing that would of made sense to me. That and it just has not ever came up in a game for me.That makes some previous comments make a lot more sense now...I should of quite while I was ahead! :whistle:

The wording implies that if one was face up and a second was revealed. What I am talking about was trying to see if the play was even legal in the first place. This is a grey area that we are still working on. We a have this discussion every once in a while when adding new content to the rule book or cleaning up wording in the rules or FAQ.(personally the way I voted was that the enchant rule should only apply to face up enchants)

The wording implies that if one was face up and a second was revealed. What I am talking about was trying to see if the play was even legal in the first place. This is a grey area that we are still working on. We a have this discussion every once in a while when adding new content to the rule book or cleaning up wording in the rules or FAQ.(personally the way I voted was that the enchant rule should only apply to face up enchants)

With the vague nature of the answers this is what I suspected. However, I for one, will be perfectly happy playing it the way you are suggesting. This makes the most sense to me as both a rules interpretation and the smoothest, cleanest gameplay mechanic.

It specifies that if an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target, it is immediately destroyed. Therefore whoever reveals first does not have their enchantment destroyed as at that stage there is no revealed identical enchantment in place at the time, and at that stage the other player must declare their enchantment and it is destroyed.

If a player double casts one of their own enchantments on his creatures then that is something that the umpire needs to decide how to resolve.

I view the concept of an "Enchantment Vaccine" to be a bit off-flavor here... Even if it were ever deemed legal, I see most players house-ruling that it's illegal, bad-form, and taking advantage of a potenitial loop-hole that diminishes the thematic beauty of the game.

The cleanest way to view and interpret the multiple enchantment reveal rule would be that the first revealed (reveal costs paid) enchantment remains. Any same-named unrevealed enchantments on the same creature are immediately discarded. And no player can KNOWINGLY cast a same-named enchantment on a creature that already has one on it, revealed or unrevealed... So you can't cast 2 Bear Strengths on your own creature.

So to clarify the previous example:

1) Wizard casts Poison Blood on himself (unrevealed)2) Warlock casts Poison Blood on Wizard and chooses to reveal it, paying all costs.3) Wizard must now reveal his own Poison Blood enchantment, discarding it immediately, given that his mage already has a Poison Blood enchantment revealed on himself.

If the Warlock chose to not reveal his curse right away, and the Wizard reveals his Poison Blood first, it is immediately discarded without effect if he doesn't pay the reveal costs, allowing the Warlock's unrevealed Poison Blood to remain and be revealed and paid for at a later time.

This ruling would seem to be the cleanest and thematically-realistic, without worry of players taking advantage of a strange wording loop-hole. "I'm playing against a Warlock? Oh, I better cast my Ghoul Rot Vaccine on myself right away...." (sigh...) ;)

Basically one of the biggest things here is how should this work in tourney, and / or fun play.

We have a few things to look at first what the problem of illegal casting of an enchant.

Next goes to the Flip rule.So in some cases I would be the first caster but if the other player casts then flips an enchant and happen to have cast the same things earlier in the game how would this be ruled.

Due to the current wording me the original caster would be the one that suffers. But this would have been based off the fact the the casting of the enchant was illegal in the first place.

The problems with house rules is that when you are teaching new player and they later try to play in other groups they tend to make choices based off incorrect rules. While house rules are nice when your are looking at rules for league and tourney play you want rulings that are easy to understand, balanced, and good for the community.

But there is a core concept that is wrong in the first question. You cannot defend against an enchantment by keeping one unrevealed on yourself as the opponent can cast and reveal before you could ever reveal your enchantment and therefore the one you cast but did not reveal gets destroyed. Revealed is a state for an enchantment so for the multiple rule to trigger that state must apply to one of the enchantments which then dictates what happens.

In the event that two player have both cast an enchantment on an object or zone and not revealed it then the rules cover it. When one player elects to reveal the other players enchantment gets destroyed.

If someone casts two enchantments on the same object then you have to deal with it as you would any position where something gets played wrong.

We actually had this come up also. I personally think the easiest way to fix it is to say you cannot knowingly attach an Identical enchantment to the same target. It does say in the rules, it is possible for both players may attach an identical enchantment to the same target. Then it says "if an identical enchantment is revealed is immediately destroyed, it never says unrevealed enchantments get destroyed. The way I read it, there is no way you could use it defensively. If I revealed poison blood on myself, why would the opponent put it on me? If they reveal it on me first, when I revealed mine, mine would be destroyed. That is what I believe the intention was supposed to be.

I would agree that the second enchantment with the same name that becomes revealed gets destroyed.

I would add that if the opponent mage already had cast a still-unrevealed enchantment of the same name, then that unrevealed card also gets destroyed. I get this from the text that says: "but each object or zone cannot have more than one enchantment with the same name attached to it at one time." As soon as the first player reveals the enchantment, the second player is made aware that there now are two enchantments of the same name attached, which is against the rules. It then should become the second mage's responsibility to reveal the duplicate enchantment (without paying the reveal cost) and eliminating that card. (If it remains, it not only breaks the rules but also might be used much as a decoy could, making the target creature appear more powerful than it truly is.)

To me it was not against the rules for the other enchantment to be attached second and revealed first, as that mage did not know that this would cause a second enchantment of the same name to exist.

There is no limit to the number of different enchantmentsthat can be on an object, but each object or zone cannothave more than one enchantment with the same nameattached to it at one time. This includes both hidden andrevealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach twoBear Strength spells to the same creature.

That should be one paragraph by itself. Then the next part:

Quote

It is possible thatboth players may attach an identical enchantment to thesame target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on thesame target, it is immediately destroyed.

This should be a separate paragraph that I would reword as follows.

Quote

It is legal for a player to play the same enchantment on the same object as another player, as long as the first one has not been revealed. As soon as one of these enchantments is revealed, the other enchantment must be destroyed without effect.

In this way there are two rules for playing enchantments. The first specifies how enchantments work for an individual player, and the second explains how enchantments work when multiple players are involved.

Humm i did not think of this situation but could see the possibility occuring: wings is a good example as i could see it being played to not be hindered by that creature, or to shoot it at range 0, or for attacks with +X to flyers. A second example could be in a multiplayer, whereby two opponents have cast agony on my mage for example.

A possible ruling could be that any reveal of an enchantment that is identical to any face down enchantments must also be revealed. Then all the identical enchantments that were revealed due this rule are returned to books and mana refunded equal to the amount spent (2 mana).

Its just that wording of "If an identical enchantment is revealed" made me think....well, If an identical enchantment is revealed I should of known better since I knew you could not place identical enchantments "face down" on yourself. Maybe coming for a MtG tournament setting, player honesty is just not a virtue I expect. Although I think I would notice if this were done and I don't really think it would be an issue.

It really seems clear that one could never use an enchantment as a "vaccine", preventing an opponent from playing the same enchantment on them. Why? Because as soon as you reveal your "vaccine" enchantment, if you don't first pay the reveal costs, it's immediately destroyed, before it can resolve and have any effect... The enchantment is never flipped over and revealed unless it's reveal cost is paid first, leaving your opponent's enchantment still in place.

When you reveal your enchantment, first you pay the revealcost, before resolving the effect of the enchantment. If thecost is not paid, the enchantment is destroyed before itcan resolve and have any effect. If the cost is paid, flip theenchantment over and reveal it to your opponent, then placeit partially under the object it is attached to.

Its just that wording of "If an identical enchantment is revealed" made me think....well, If an identical enchantment is revealed I should of known better since I knew you could not place identical enchantments "face down" on yourself. Maybe coming for a MtG tournament setting, player honesty is just not a virtue I expect. Although I think I would notice if this were done and I don't really think it would be an issue.

I think its more of a two players placed the same enchantment on target issue not a question of a player's virtue.

It is a targeting issue cleverly hidden in the enchantment matrix. Does a hidden enchantment named X prevent all other hidden enchantments, named X, from targeting the object in question? Yes it does and when the second hidden enchantment X is revealed (regardless of the state of the original hidden enchantment) it is destroyed immediately as clearly stated in the rules.

Players should not knowingly put a copy of an enchantment (same name) on the same target. For example, if you have a face-down Block on your creature, you cannot put more face-down hidden Blocks on him. If your creature has a revealed Bear Strength, you cannot put a second Bear Strength on him face-down asa "backup plan".

If you reveal an enchantment (pay its reveal costs and flip it over), and discover that there are any other revealed enchantments in play with the same name on that target, then you have to destroy the new one you just revealed.

Players cannot reveal enchantments on a target to destroy the new enchantment which was just revealed. So, you cannot use a face-down enchantment to counter a new one (as a "vaccine").

The first revealed enchantment take precedence. Any others revealed later are destroyed when they are revealed.

That should be fairly clear, and I believe the original intent is in line with what most fo you seem to feel makes good sense.

What is not clear is: If someone reveals an enchantment and you know you ave a face-down one wit the same name - do you have to reveal it right away and destroy it?

Or, are you allowed to keep it there face-down, hoping to use it later if the revealed enchantment goes away? Of course, it is assumed it was placed on the target legally (before the other one was revealed and without knowledge of the duplication).

We can rule either way on this, and would appreciate feedback to add to the FAQ. I feel like the face-down duplications should be revealed and destroyed because they are "illegal". And without mana refund (simpler). However, lets get some feedback on this.

The good news is that this should very rarely occur, so the ruling we make should have little impact on the game.

And I, for one, would vote to have any duplicate facedown enchantment immediately discarded upon a same-named enchantment being revealed... (This could obviously happen in multi-player / team play games)... And this would be the cleanest solution with the smallest margin of potential abuse. In other words, the same basic enchantment rules apply in both 1:1 and multiplayer games.

Whilst I agree with Shadow that it would be the simplest I think they should be removed. If not it then makes valid the tactic of if (for some reason) you want the same enchantment as your opponent has cast on your creature then you could cast it and keep it hidden until removing the other one.

I think the "no duplication" rule should only apply to spells that you know about, namely:1) Revealed enchantments2) Face-down duplicates of your own enchantments

Basically, if I cast a face-down Nullify on my knight, I cannot cast another. If my opponent also casts a face-down Nullify on the same Knight, that's okay. If my opponent casts a Sleep and I reveal the friendly Nullify, this should not affect the existence of a enemy Nullify. He should be able to use it to counter the Heal that I cast a few rounds later.

From a refereeing standpoint, this is much cleaner than "forcing" my opponent to destroy his Nullify as soon as I use my Nullify. There is no way to realistically police that. If I cast a heal four rounds later it would be very difficult to tell whether or not the enemy nullify "should" have been destroyed four rounds ago.

Therefore, the most logical answer is that the Nullify should NOT have been destroyed.

On the other hand, if we both cast Eagle Wings on the same creature and I reveal Eagle Wings first, my opponent can no longer reveal his Eagle Wings without immediately discarding (destroying) it. However, he can legally leave it as a facedown enchantment and leave me guessing for the rest of the game.

I have no problems with the rule as it is. I have never had it come up in a game as I said before, and dont see it happening any time soon. I dont think I would of got confused if we didnt have multiple things to talk about, leading to hypotheticals and so forth.(That and the wording is misleading) I would just leave it as it is, that way there is no confusion to legal targeting on your own creatures. If there is a duplicate enchantment revealed or hidden and it is known, it should be destroyed or it is illegal. Otherwise I would in every way agree with shad0w, but with the other rules being considered I would rather have it the way it is. (so no one would think it was ok to have duplicate enchantments just because one was hidden)

piousflea brings up a good point about Nullify. I would initially say that when your opponent reveals an enchantment you should destroy a same enchantment that you have. However, it would be impossible to ensure that that happens. Whether on purpose or accident, you can't know if you opponent should destroy their enchantment or not.So for simplicity the rules should stand as they are for your own enchantments, and when multiple players are involved, you only take into account what is currently revealed.

I agree with that (what piousflea and Shad0w said) As I put in my previous post, but do you think that would lead to any confusion with your duplicating your own enchantments? (Like I said, so no one would think it was ok to have duplicate enchantments *on themselves* just because one was hidden) If none thinks that would cause any confusion,(Im looking at you Drealin/piousflea/Shad0w) then I am in all the way with it only taking into account what is currently revealed. (I just foresee confusion) Piousflea has made me think not. It should be clear that it is illegal, I was thinking more about teaching the game and should of made that clear.edit: On the other hand with the talk about only destroying revealed enchantments....like piousflea suggested; then "he can legally leave it as a facedown enchantment and leave me guessing for the rest of the game." Is that kind of abuse? I like this ruling for simplicity but Im sort of playing devils advocate on this one. Thank you to everyone that is putting up with me here! :dry:

Illegal self duplication is easier to control than enemy duplication. If I dispel a bear strength on your Mage, and three rounds later you reveal another bear strength: either you have not cast any enchantments on yourself over the past three rounds, in which case I call you out for illegal casting, or you have cast enchantments on yourself in the meantime. In that case, you've spent a quick action and 2 mana so you've effectively paid the cost of re-enchanting.

That said, in an extremely high stakes tournament game, if one player has a large number of face downs, it could be reasonable to call a referee to make sure there are no duplicates.

Illegal self duplication is easier to control than enemy duplication. If I dispel a bear strength on your Mage, and three rounds later you reveal another bear strength: either you have not cast any enchantments on yourself over the past three rounds, in which case I call you out for illegal casting, or you have cast enchantments on yourself in the meantime. In that case, you've spent a quick action and 2 mana so you've effectively paid the cost of re-enchanting.

That said, in an extremely high stakes tournament game, if one player has a large number of face downs, it could be reasonable to call a referee to make sure there are no duplicates.

I agree with everything you said.For enemy duplication I think that the rule only comes into play for revealed enchantments, I don't think this will cause any real confusion, it's just a minor change from the self duplication rule. Plus it is normally a very rare occurrence.As far as having a face down enchantment making the other person guess for the rest of the game. That can happen no matter what, and what Decoy's are for, if you decide to use a different enchantment than Decoy, I see no problem with that since you won't get your mana refunded ever.

I think the issue of a duplicate Nulify is different from an enchantment that remains in play after being revealed.

So if both my opponent and I have a Nulify on my creature, and I reveal nulify to cancel a spell, my opponent's nulify would still remain unrevealed on the creature seeing as how once mine is revealed, it is immediately discarded... So as soon as my opponent realizes that there were two nulifys on the same creature (only one of them his), there now remains only one nulify enchantment on the creature, breaking no rules.

Why would he have to discard his now lone nulify? He wouldn't.

And I have to admit, I never really considered casting a nulify on my opponent's creatures before... it could actually be an interesting tactic to try sometime. B)

There can't be 2 Nullify's on the same creature. The casting of the second by the opposing mage causes the first Nullify to be revealed (mandatory reveal icon on Nullify), at which point it's controller must decide to pay the reveal cost and cancel the second Nullify or not pay and let the second Nullify be attached to his creature. As a side note the controller of the first Nullify only knows his creature is being targeted with an enchantment at this point, not what that enchantment is.

However, the point remains that it is extremely difficult to referee whether or not a temporary enchantment "should have" destroyed a facedown duplicate. So the best idea is that the facedown duplicate should remain intact

I think the issue of a duplicate Nulify is different from an enchantment that remains in play after being revealed.

So if both my opponent and I have a Nulify on my creature, and I reveal nulify to cancel a spell, my opponent's nulify would still remain unrevealed on the creature seeing as how once mine is revealed, it is immediately discarded... So as soon as my opponent realizes that there were two nulifys on the same creature (only one of them his), there now remains only one nulify enchantment on the creature, breaking no rules.

Why would he have to discard his now lone nulify? He wouldn't.

And I have to admit, I never really considered casting a nulify on my opponent's creatures before... it could actually be an interesting tactic to try sometime. B)

Well nullify is a mandatory reveal enchantment so that could never be the case. I cast nullify on my opponents warlock every chance I get! :evil: (I hate the warlock so very, very much.)edit I did not see the page 2! :blush:

There can't be 2 Nullify's on the same creature. The casting of the second by the opposing mage causes the first Nullify to be revealed (mandatory reveal icon on Nullify), at which point it's controller must decide to pay the reveal cost and cancel the second Nullify or not pay and let the second Nullify be attached to his creature. As a side note the controller of the first Nullify only knows his creature is being targeted with an enchantment at this point, not what that enchantment is.

Since we're in "TheoryVille" here, actually there could potentially be 2 Nulifys on one creature. How, you ask? In Teamplay games.

If both I and an ally in a teamplay game cast nulify on an opposing mage, then yes, there could exist an example of 2 legaly cast nulifies on a single creature.

But I also admit that in a 2-player game, this could never happen. My bad. I was trying to think of both 1:1 and team games at the same time, and obviously had a Spell of Confusion cast upon me by a opposing mage. (Hmmmm.... Spell of Confusion... interesting future enchantment release?... When revealed, the intended spell's target is now cast upon a randomly determined creature instead, both ally and enemy considered alike? Wow... I like that!)

There can't be 2 Nullify's on the same creature. The casting of the second by the opposing mage causes the first Nullify to be revealed (mandatory reveal icon on Nullify), at which point it's controller must decide to pay the reveal cost and cancel the second Nullify or not pay and let the second Nullify be attached to his creature. As a side note the controller of the first Nullify only knows his creature is being targeted with an enchantment at this point, not what that enchantment is.

Since we're in "TheoryVille" here, actually there could potentially be 2 Nulifys on one creature. How, you ask? In Teamplay games.

If both I and an ally in a teamplay game cast nulify on an opposing mage, then yes, there could exist an example of 2 legaly cast nulifies on a single creature.

But I also admit that in a 2-player game, this could never happen. My bad. I was trying to think of both 1:1 and team games at the same time, and obviously had a Spell of Confusion cast upon me by a opposing mage. (Hmmmm.... Spell of Confusion... interesting future enchantment release?... When revealed, the intended spell's target is now cast upon a randomly determined creature instead, both ally and enemy considered alike? Wow... I like that!)

Even in team games the first Nullify HAS to trigger when the creature is targeted by ANYONE, even including the owner of Nullify.

There can't be 2 Nullify's on the same creature. The casting of the second by the opposing mage causes the first Nullify to be revealed (mandatory reveal icon on Nullify), at which point it's controller must decide to pay the reveal cost and cancel the second Nullify or not pay and let the second Nullify be attached to his creature. As a side note the controller of the first Nullify only knows his creature is being targeted with an enchantment at this point, not what that enchantment is.

Since we're in "TheoryVille" here, actually there could potentially be 2 Nulifys on one creature. How, you ask? In Teamplay games.

If both I and an ally in a teamplay game cast nulify on an opposing mage, then yes, there could exist an example of 2 legaly cast nulifies on a single creature.

But I also admit that in a 2-player game, this could never happen. My bad. I was trying to think of both 1:1 and team games at the same time, and obviously had a Spell of Confusion cast upon me by a opposing mage. (Hmmmm.... Spell of Confusion... interesting future enchantment release?... When revealed, the intended spell's target is now cast upon a randomly determined creature instead, both ally and enemy considered alike? Wow... I like that!)

Even in team games the first Nullify HAS to trigger when the creature is targeted by ANYONE, even including the owner of Nullify.

Nulify is only activated when an opposing mage casts an enchantment or incantation on the creature.

There can't be 2 Nullify's on the same creature. The casting of the second by the opposing mage causes the first Nullify to be revealed (mandatory reveal icon on Nullify), at which point it's controller must decide to pay the reveal cost and cancel the second Nullify or not pay and let the second Nullify be attached to his creature. As a side note the controller of the first Nullify only knows his creature is being targeted with an enchantment at this point, not what that enchantment is.

Since we're in "TheoryVille" here, actually there could potentially be 2 Nulifys on one creature. How, you ask? In Teamplay games.

If both I and an ally in a teamplay game cast nulify on an opposing mage, then yes, there could exist an example of 2 legaly cast nulifies on a single creature.

But I also admit that in a 2-player game, this could never happen. My bad. I was trying to think of both 1:1 and team games at the same time, and obviously had a Spell of Confusion cast upon me by a opposing mage. (Hmmmm.... Spell of Confusion... interesting future enchantment release?... When revealed, the intended spell's target is now cast upon a randomly determined creature instead, both ally and enemy considered alike? Wow... I like that!)

Even in team games the first Nullify HAS to trigger when the creature is targeted by ANYONE, even including the owner of Nullify.

Nulify is only activated when an opposing mage casts an enchantment or incantation on the creature.

Correct, Nullify specifically says when "targeted by an incantation or enchantment spell controlled by an opponent".But the real question here is:

If an opponent reveals an enchantment on an object, and you have the same enchantment hidden on that object, are you required to let the opponent know that?If yes, then what happens to each enchantment?

There can't be 2 Nullify's on the same creature. The casting of the second by the opposing mage causes the first Nullify to be revealed (mandatory reveal icon on Nullify), at which point it's controller must decide to pay the reveal cost and cancel the second Nullify or not pay and let the second Nullify be attached to his creature. As a side note the controller of the first Nullify only knows his creature is being targeted with an enchantment at this point, not what that enchantment is.

Since we're in "TheoryVille" here, actually there could potentially be 2 Nulifys on one creature. How, you ask? In Teamplay games.

If both I and an ally in a teamplay game cast nulify on an opposing mage, then yes, there could exist an example of 2 legaly cast nulifies on a single creature.

But I also admit that in a 2-player game, this could never happen. My bad. I was trying to think of both 1:1 and team games at the same time, and obviously had a Spell of Confusion cast upon me by a opposing mage. (Hmmmm.... Spell of Confusion... interesting future enchantment release?... When revealed, the intended spell's target is now cast upon a randomly determined creature instead, both ally and enemy considered alike? Wow... I like that!)

Even in team games the first Nullify HAS to trigger when the creature is targeted by ANYONE, even including the owner of Nullify.

Nulify is only activated when an opposing mage casts an enchantment or incantation on the creature.

Correct, Nullify specifically says when "targeted by an incantation or enchantment spell controlled by an opponent".But the real question here is:

If an opponent reveals an enchantment on an object, and you have the same enchantment hidden on that object, are you required to let the opponent know that?If yes, then what happens to each enchantment?

I believe Arcanus answered what happens to the first enchantment revealed. It stays in play and takes effect. The question is what happens to the face down enchantment? Does it stay in play or should it be shown and discarded.

It's a question that has to be answered, but I'm not sure how important it is since it shouldn't impact the game very much. I can see both sides and at the moment I'm kinda indifferent. Hopefully I'll get a feeling for which I prefer over the next couple of days.

But if someone is going to cheat it is a rules problem anyway. There is nothing stopping me casting two nullify enchantments now and only revealing one other than honesty.

You are correct but I think that is a separate issue.

The original question was one hell of a head scratcher. Now that Arcanus has answered it we are left with the secondary question of the now known to be duplicate face down enchantment controlled by the opposing mage.

Since it was "illegal" by the rules does its controller show it to his opponent and discard it, which relies on the honesty of the individual, or do we just let it remain in play because policing it is more trouble than it is worth. The first is a right is right argument and the second is more of a no blood no foul argument. The second is the more expedient. I don't believe there is a right or wrong choice, just a choice that has to be made. The only real concern is what works best for the game.

But if someone is going to cheat it is a rules problem anyway. There is nothing stopping me casting two nullify enchantments now and only revealing one other than honesty.

You are correct but I think that is a separate issue.

The original question was one hell of a head scratcher. Now that Arcanus has answered it we are left with the secondary question of the now known to be duplicate face down enchantment controlled by the opposing mage.

Since it was "illegal" by the rules does its controller show it to his opponent and discard it, which relies on the honesty of the individual, or do we just let it remain in play because policing it is more trouble than it is worth. The first is a right is right argument and the second is more of a no blood no foul argument. The second is the more expedient. I don't believe there is a right or wrong choice, just a choice that has to be made. The only real concern is what works best for the game.

This is the choice I have to make when judging. Since we use a passive judging system for most matches, if you think the other player is cheating please call a judge over. We will be more than happy to look into it.

I would argue that in a team fight, players should be allowed to look at friendly facedown enchants, and in fact should be REQUIRED to look at each others enchants during the "Cast Spell" step.

Otherwise, it would be way too easy for players to intentionally duplicate enchantments on each other. For example, you know that it is very likely that enemy players will dispel Bear Strength on a Forcemaster: so if both players agree before the game that they'll cast bear strength on the FM. If their opponents cry foul at the duplication they'd just say, "oops, it was unintentional".

The purpose of outlawing duplicates is so that: When I dispel a bear strength off your Mage, no matter how many facedown enchants are still on you, I should be 100% certain that you do not have a Bear Strength, unless you spend another quick action to cast a brand new enchant.

The same rule should apply to casting hostile enchants, or else I'll get my teammate to cast a duplicate Ghoul Rot on you.

I would argue that in a team fight, players should be allowed to look at friendly facedown enchants, and in fact should be REQUIRED to look at each others enchants during the "Cast Spell" step.

Otherwise, it would be way too easy for players to intentionally duplicate enchantments on each other. For example, you know that it is very likely that enemy players will dispel Bear Strength on a Forcemaster: so if both players agree before the game that they'll cast bear strength on the FM. If their opponents cry foul at the duplication they'd just say, "oops, it was unintentional".

The purpose of outlawing duplicates is so that: When I dispel a bear strength off your Mage, no matter how many facedown enchants are still on you, I should be 100% certain that you do not have a Bear Strength, unless you spend another quick action to cast a brand new enchant.

The same rule should apply to casting hostile enchants, or else I'll get my teammate to cast a duplicate Ghoul Rot on you.

I second this! Each team should "play as one" anyway, discussing strategies, table talk, and freedom to see each others hands. This would be the easiest solution.

For example, I run a Beastmaster deck with three Nullifies and one Decoy. I'll sometimes use the Decoy as a "4th Nullify". My most common opponent also runs a Decoy, and likes to use it to check for Nullifies on my creatures. It's entirely possible that my Beastmaster will end up simultaniously enchanted with two Decoys, both his and mine.

When my Decoy fails to react to his, and he doesn't reveal his Decoy, we'll both probably realize what happened, but we won't know for sure. My opponent will probably suspect that my enchantment is a Decoy, though, and will want to confirm this by revealing his own Decoy.

Should I have to reveal my own Decoy because I now know that the creature was enchanted with two of the same enchantment? Does it matter that it's only very briefly and that the enchantment is destroyed as soon as it's revealed?

Also, Death Link is another interesting case (in a Dark Mage v Dark Mage mirror match) and it shows how carefully this rule needs to be worded.

For example, if my opponent summons a Necropian Vampiress and enchants it, and if I think the face down enchantment is Death Link, can try to knock off his Death Link by enchanting his creature with my own Death Link and revealing mine before he gets a chance to?

Or, suppose I cast and reveal Death Link on my own creature, and then he casts and reveals Death Link on his Vampiress. Can I use Shift Enchantment to move my Death Link to his Vampiress, destroying his enchantment? I cast it first, and I revealed it first.

There's also some of this in the Holy Mage mirror match with Divine Intervention. If we both Divine Intervention the same creature, the natural thing to do would be to wait the other guy out. He triggers his, then I trigger mine to undo it. If the brief presence of his destroys mine, though, then it's a rush to reveal.

And I really don't want to dig into the timing rules to figure out who gets priority to reveal a Divine Intervention.

Also, this ruling matters when enchanting zones. Either Sacred Ground or Fortified Position might get cast twice on the same zone. If my opponent casts and reveals one of these on a Zone I have similarly enchanted but not yet revealed, do I have to announce and destroy my own enchantment?

Or my opponent and I might both cast Hellfire Trap or Teleport Trap in the same square. Should triggering one automatically destroy the other?

Not that anyone asked, but my recommendation is to limit the rule to revealed enchantments only. If I'm not playing enchantments with red reveal costs I shouldn't have to keep track of them for forced revelation. The game already requires me to remember and monitor a lot. In a tournament, there's no reason to penalize my opponent just because he forgot to reveal and destroy an enchantment because of a rare corner case in the rules.

If I reveal a duplicate enchantment, mine should get destroyed (his should stay). But I shouldn't be able to use Shift Enchantment or Steal Enchantment as a wrecking ball to try to fish for my opponent's face down spells. It's already powerful enough that I can block them from being revealed until my own enchantment gets destroyed (Dispelled).

I was just directed to this thread, and as the FAQ has not yet been updated, I thought I'd get my questions and comments in.

From the way I understand Arcanus, if two duplicate enchants are unknowingly placed on a target (because they come from different opposing players) then the first one that is revealed is the one that gets to stay legally.

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

This is just going by the rules that have already been decided and declared by Arcanus. I understand there was a cliffhanger regarding what happens to an unrevealed enchant after a duplicate is revealed. My vote is to allow it to remain. It's just seems simpler. If we say it is destroyed, we end up with the potential for a wrecking ball like Ringkichard described using shift enchantment and other such spells to move an enchant around fishing for its unrevealed brethren.

I was just directed to this thread, and as the FAQ has not yet been updated, I thought I'd get my questions and comments in.

From the way I understand Arcanus, if two duplicate enchants are unknowingly placed on a target (because they come from different opposing players) then the first one that is revealed is the one that gets to stay legally.

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

This is just going by the rules that have already been decided and declared by Arcanus. I understand there was a cliffhanger regarding what happens to an unrevealed enchant after a duplicate is revealed. My vote is to allow it to remain. It's just seems simpler. If we say it is destroyed, we end up with the potential for a wrecking ball like Ringkichard described using shift enchantment and other such spells to move an enchant around fishing for its unrevealed brethren.

There's a problem with that though. Even if it's done unknowingly, it's illegal for an enchantment to target something that already has a same-named enchantment attached. So regardless of whether the second copy was revealed first or not, it was still unintentionally cast on an illegal target in the first place.

I also think there is a deep thematic problem along with the mechanical one. Consider the literal meaning of "casting" a spell as opposed to "revealing" it. "Reveal" sounds like you're just "revealing" an object or phenomenon that you already created or brought into existence. "Casting" sounds like it should be the actual creating or bringing into existence. Why does the actual creating of an object or phenomenon--what should be the bulk of the spellwork, always cost the same extremely low amount of mana, while merely revealing that you cast the spell costs so much more!

One would think that it would take a lot more mana to bring a very powerful enchantment into being, and then it would just take that little bit more magical fuel to kickstart its effects into motion. But it doesn't work that way in Mage Wars, and without any explanation it seems very counter-intuitive, thematically.

Here's my solution:

The name of an enchantment should be treated like a trait. A non-mandatory enchantment would gain its name when its reveal cost is paid--that is to say, when it becomes the specific spell the mage who cast it had intended it to be.

Unlike a non-mandatory enchantment which gains its name when its reveal cost is paid, a mandatory enchantment gets its name before that, when its conditions are met.

I think this solves everything for non-mandatory enchantments. For instance, if both players cast a force hold on the same creature, the one who revealed it first would not be targeting illegally, since a non-mandatory hidden enchantment is shapeless and formless. It's just a clump of mana that has yet to be converted into the specific spell it's meant to become.

As for the enchantment that's still hidden, it could not be revealed, since revealing an enchantment would cause it to become a specific named enchantment, and two enchantments cannot both have the same name on the same target. A hidden enchantment wouldn't actually have a name. Rather, it would have a potential name.

As for mandatory enchantments: the thing about mandatory enchantments is that they are by their very nature dependent on either memory or honesty. If player 1 casts a nullify on ANYTHING and its conditions are met, they have to reveal it. However, player 2 doesn't know that it's a nullify, and therefore doesn't know that it has to be revealed right then and there. Theoretically, if it isn't seeking dispelled, player 1 could leave that nullify there the ENTIRE GAME and player 2 would never know.

However, you can only include a max of 6 nullifies in a spellbook, and most players don't even include that many. Furthermore, player 2 is quite likely to seeking dispel at least one of them as a just in case precaution against whatever enchantments they think the nullify might be, including what it actually is, if they think it's strategically advantageous or necessary to do so.

Also, if player 1 cheats by not revealing their nullify when the conditions are met, they will most likely reveal their nullify at another point when the conditions are met, rather than waiting until the end of the game and never revealing the nullify to player 2. Decent memory combined with prompt play should make it easier to catch such infringements, but of course, not everyone is good at that.

Personally I think Mage Wars is so complex a game with so much mandatory multitasking, that it can be very easy to cheat unintentionally. I've often found myself looking back in the gamelog on OCTGN when I've forgotten whether something happened or didn't happen. A recurring problem for me is remembering to raise my channeling stat when I cast a mana crystal, and I'm sure I'm far from unique in that respect. I think it would be best to record all official arena matches, so that it's easier to keep track of this sort of thing. If players get confused and don't know whether for instance, they remembered to pay certain upkeep costs in a prior round, then they would have a referee look at the recording. (I'm thinking they wouldn't be able to look at it themselves, since each video camera would probably be recording multiple games at once.)

That seems like a very protracted way of saying that unrevealed enchantments can be left in play, Imaginator. Although you seem to want to make an exception to that statement for Mandatory Reveal Enchantments.

The best example I can think of where two mandatory enchantments might be illegally stacked is not with Nullify, which would naturally cancel each other out upon cast, but rather with traps. What happens if both players put a Hellfire Trap in the same zone? An illegal play has been made without the players aware of it. When the first player reveals his trap, should the second player get to keep his face down or have to destroy it? If he has to destroy it, when other Enchantments are allowed to stay, why the discrepancy?

But hellfire trap only activates when an ENEMY creature enters the zone, and it can only be cast on a zone without enemy creatures. So only one hellfire trap would gain its name first when player 1's creature enters the zone, then it would be destroyed before the other hellfire trap's conditions are met when player 2's creature enters. Traps are not a counter example here.

I apologize, I misread your post thinking you had said that Mandatory Reveal Spells would count their name against duplicate spells while still hidden. Going back and rereading what you said, I see now that they would also only be counted against each other upon reveal.

Thus, you seem to have explained your reasoning for why you agree with the ruling that if a duplicate enchantment is revealed, the hidden one should be allowed to remain.

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

Yes, as of now, that would be a RAW reading of how the matrix works.

My own opinion on this has always been that this is just good old fashioned counter magic at work. Dispelling an enchantment is the exact same mana cost, and it costs you spell book points, to cast actions, and not to mention the foresight to see it coming. I would argue that such higher level of playing should be rewarded and not prevented.

The strategy is very difficult to pull off. When an opponent reveals an enchantment, you have to make that call right then and there. You can not wait until the next phase of revealing, which as of now is as follows.

1. Pay mana.2. Resolve.

So my opponent has to pay the mana, and then based on that information I have to decide to pay my mana to gamble that it is the same enchantment. Notice how I never see what the enchantment is as flipping happens after the mana is paid as per paragraph 2 of Reveling enchantments, Rule book v 2.0.

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

Yes, as of now, that would be a RAW reading of how the matrix works.

My own opinion on this has always been that this is just good old fashioned counter magic at work. Dispelling an enchantment is the exact same mana cost, and it costs you spell book points, to cast actions, and not to mention the foresight to see it coming. I would argue that such higher level of playing should be rewarded and not prevented.

The strategy is very difficult to pull off. When an opponent reveals an enchantment, you have to make that call right then and there. You can not wait until the next phase of revealing, which as of now is as follows.

1. Pay mana.2. Resolve.

So my opponent has to pay the mana, and then based on that information I have to decide to pay my mana to gamble that it is the same enchantment. Notice how I never see what the enchantment is as flipping happens after the mana is paid as per paragraph 2 of Reveling enchantments, Rule book v 2.0.

It's not quite "good old fashioned countering" since old-fashioned countering is from spells with the "counter" effect responding directly to another spell that is already "on the stack", rather than merely removing it from "the stack" by making its target illegal.

While it does take skill to predict enchantments that way in order to counter them, I think how difficult they are to predict depends on the circumstance. Sometimes it can be very obvious what enchantment the opponent is going to use, and other times not so much.

Also, people aren't usually going to include every possible enchantment that might be remotely useful to counter unless they're targeting particular enchantment-dependent spellbooks. There's a limited number of spellbook points for each mage. Most people would probably just include the enchantments that are most important for them to counter. In that scenario, it's not so much about predicting WHICH enchantment needs to be countered, so much as determining which possible enchantment would be the most urgent to counter--the one that's most threatening and likely to be played.

While countering does have its place in Mage Wars, I fear that this could lead to full-out Counter-Enchantment Wars between all the mages and schools, even though countering should be more of an Arcane school specialty (and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, Mind). Such an overblown counter-enchantment war would probably make it so that lots of people would have to include a quite a few more extra copies of their more important enchantments, and builds that are more dependent on enchantments for the effects that are actually written on them would be less viable.

Furthermore, as I previously said in a thread that referenced this one, countering an enchantment by revealing the same enchantment looks awfully like sympathetic magic, which should be a Sympath's specialty should such a mage ever exist in Etheria. And if that were to happen, I don't think such a countering effect should occur merely by revealing the enchantment.

Rather, I think it would be far more balanced to use a conjuration that attaches to a creature or zone and can remove incantations and enchantments from the game facedown and attached to itself during the planning phase (the conjuration not the creature/zone). Then when an identical incantation or enchantment is cast or revealed on the creature/zone, the one attached to the conjuration can be revealed too and discarded, which counters the other copy.

If such a conjuration existed, I think it should be (2 Mind OR 2 Arcane). That way it won't be spammed by everybody under the sun, but will still be available to defensive builds that find it useful for defending against key enchantment weaknesses.

The strategy is very difficult to pull off. When an opponent reveals an enchantment, you have to make that call right then and there. You can not wait until the next phase of revealing, which as of now is as follows.

1. Pay mana.2. Resolve.

I agree that it is an unlikely scenario and difficult to pull off. I just want to make sure I understand how it would work if it was to occur. To that end, I am going to question the phases of revealing. The rulebook never defines the steps of revealing an enchantment as phases, steps, or anything other than a single "free action." Thus, I am not sure that you can interrupt them. If they are indeed both part of a single free action, the rulebook states you "can not interrupt an event to reveal an enchantment."

The rule regarding my question states: "If both players WANT to reveal an enchantment at the same time, the player with the initiative goes first." It states nothing about being able to interrupt the revealing of an enchantment. Thus, it seems that one needs to declare their intention to reveal an enchantment before paying the mana cost. At that point, if their opponent has initiative, their opponent may say "before you do that, I would like to reveal an enchantment." Then once the opponent with initiative has finished revealing enchantments, the first player then could decide he's not going to reveal his enchantment after all, since he never actually begun to do so, he simply expressed a desire to do so.

We are then still left with the question of what to do about the face down duplicate. Whether she is required to destroy it or may leave it face down for future use. Either way though, at least we have saved her from paying the reveal cost on the enchantment for no benefit. I still vote that she be allowed to leave it in play face down.

Quote from: Imaginator

which should be a Sympath's specialty should such a mage ever exist in Etheria.

I believe you are getting slightly off topic. Let us stick to discussing current rules and not future possible expansions.

I was trying to give a hypothetical example of how such an "enchantment vaccine" tactic could work in a balanced and thematically logical form, as opposed to being caused by a rules-wording glitch. I suppose that might not have been necessary and I might have rambled a bit when making that point. Sorry.

This discussion seems to me the kind of thing that ends up hurting otherwise potentially popular games.

What seems a fairly intuitive 'you can't double buff yourself' kind of a rule, turns into a bizarrely convoluted debate over things clearly not really intended - such as the counterintuitive enchantment vaccine.

Seems to me as a newcomer to this game that the important element here is not to double poison someone, or give a creature double bear strength. To that end, I don't really understand the difficult-to-enforce-and-open-to-rules-lawyering rule about no unrevealed enchantment being the same as a revealed enchantment.

What happened that led to this rule? I guess the intention was to avoid a long string of 'aha, you dispelled me, but here I am again with the same enchantment's, but what's the big deal? I mean, someone sacrificed doing something else for that strategy. If that is a major problem, maybe the answer is to say - you can't have two of the same enchantment revealed on a character, and you cannot reveal a new enchantment if an enchantment of the same name on that creature was destroyed that round.